“Moving forward, President Obama and the Democratic Party are committed to building a robust, long- term strategic partnership with a sovereign, united, and democratic Iraq in all fields—diplomatic, economic, and security—based on mutual interests and mutual respect.”

In fact, Iraq analysts discuss how difficult and dangerous the situation is in the country today and how the Obama Administration has done nothing to try to make it better.

On Afghanistan we are told: Obama “”refocused our efforts there in 2009, setting the clear goal of defeating al-Qaeda and denying it an ability to reestablish a safe haven in Afghanistan,” as if Bush had never thought of that idea. But in fact it also claims Obama was able to “reverse the Taliban’s momentum and to give the Afghans the time and space to build the capacity of their security forces. We have accomplished that, and now we have begun the process of bringing our troops home from Afghanistan,”

While I support the withdrawal it is well-known among Afghan experts that the Taliban is actually doing well, that the Afghan security forces are seriously flawed, and that Obama’s administration has played footsy with the Taliban. After a U.S. withdrawal anything is possible. Also the whole problem of Pakistan’s betrayal of U.S. trust (and ample funding) is not mentioned anywhere.

The section on al-Qaeda includes legitimate Obama Administration successes but can’t help but tendentiously imply that Bush was losing the war and that only Obama succeeded. The closing line of this section though contains a very important hint for understanding the problem with Obama policy:

“…We are committed to an unrelenting pursuit of those who would kill Americans or threaten our homeland, our allies, our partners, and our interests around the world.”

This is nonsense. There is an unrelenting pursuit of al-Qaeda but hardly of terrorists attacking allies, partners, and even interests. Think: Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists, Hamas, Hizballah, the Syrian regime (until it broke down in civil war), terrorist forces in Syria, and even Iran (whose operations in Iraq to kill Americans are an open secret).

Two of the most interesting of the platform’s sections deal with Iran and support for democracy. Revealingly, the discussion of Iran is under the heading, “Preventing the Spread and Use of Nuclear Weapons.” In other words, it isn’t that Iran poses some special threat but is just part of the overall need to rid the world of nuclear weapons, including the American ones.

Naturally, it talks about the sanctions put on Iran—nicely sharing credit with “international powers and Congress.” But it also includes some whoppers:

“When President Obama took office, Iran was ascendant in the region, and the international community was divided over how to address Iran’s nuclear violations.”

Really? The fact is that Iran was hardly ascendant and the international community—except for such countries as Turkey, Russia, and China that have never changed their line—was ready for serious action. It just took Obama two long years to show leadership.

“Working with our European allies and with Russia and China, the administration gained unprecedented agreement for the toughest ever UN sanctions against Iran….” That’s true but doesn’t mention that their agreement was gained by exempting them from the sanctions. The rest is pretty much standard policy that using diplomacy and pressure is best but other options including military force remain on the table.

The problem, though, is that Iran is never addressed as a strategic problem, involving its wider strategy of subversion and seeking regional hegemony. That is a big weakness in Obama policy, for example not mentioning Iran’s sponsorship of anti-American terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere. Why? Because this might add pressure to do something about Iran and also bringing up the dreaded subject of radical Islamism and the fact that Tehran leads a bloc of allies that Obama was reluctant to touch.

Finally, there is a section extolling the kind of policy that the very same people would have ridiculed and reviled (and not incorrectly, by the way) a couple of years ago as Bush’s “neo-conservatism”:

“Across the Middle East and North Africa, we have stood with the people demanding political change and seeking their rights during the Arab Spring. Since the beginning of the protests in Tunisia, the United States has consistently opposed violence against innocent civilians, supported a set of universal rights for the people of the region, and supported processes of political and economic reform. When the Egyptian people flooded Tahrir Square in Cairo demanding democracy, the administration actively engaged the Egyptian government, military, and people in support of a transition away from decades of dictatorship and towards democracy.”

About the Author:Professor Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.

If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

16 Responses to “Democratic Platform: No Mention of Islamist Challenge, No Support for Arab Liberals”

'Finally, there is a section extolling the kind of policy that the very same people would have ridiculed and reviled (and not incorrectly, by the way) a couple of years ago as Bush’s “neo-conservatism”:'.

If that platform statement isn't support for Arab liberals, I don't know what is.

The DNC platform "… clear that the window for diplomacy will not remain open indefinitely and that all options — including military force — remain on the table.”
believes that there is a clear threat to use military force, but since the language is not clear, there is no mention of the word military by President Obama, just the vague options, there is no threat at all.
If Iran thought the US would strike it would not risk staying in power and would have given up its nuclear weapons program.

You can draw a parallel with the issue of Jerusalem. The DNC platform, after 3 loud floor fights, supports Jerusalem as Israel's capitol, but The Obama Administration does not, even though it was the President that made the call to change the platform.

The Obama Administration also has made it clear that it will not support Israel's right to self-defense with a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

Mitt Romney has come out that he would support Israel in that case.

This issue is too important to use as a political football.

The question has to be what will really be done about the Iranian nuclear weapons threat.

To me it is crystal clear that if you cannot even commit to force verbally, under any scenario, you will never use force.

This also lines up with a pattern of only supporting Israel when it is politically expedient.

So when you look at both sides, even though the RNC platform does,t spell out military

The platform warns that President Barack Obama’s “failed engagement policy with Iran will lead to nuclear cascade.”

This is much more helpful than the DNC platform that says that the diplomatic engagement should not be open-ended when it is obvious that it is open-ended.

Umm no..Obama pulled out of Israel. 2/3 of the American troops are GONE & they know he has betrayed them. THEN to make matters much worse, he sent a US delegate to the Iranian Unaligned movement (for the 'caliphate'), so endorsing that 100% & THEN sent a pandering hand written kiss up note to the Iranian President saying he is not with Israel! Got it? He's out! Please catch up on the past 48 hours events. This usurper is NO friend to Israel or America!

Because he is one. He just loves the tyrannical Muslim brotherhood sooooo much. Sending them billions of taxpayer dollars & arming the bastards so they can cause Christian genocide & are preparing to go after Israel! What a traitor to free people everywhere!!
He is clear & present danger to the planet! When he decided it was 'policy' to host the radical muslims to host a 2 hour opening prayer at the DNC; the same ones that speak openly of overthrowing the 'filthy' US govt to insert Sharia law the dems should have gotten a clue. But the Obots are friggin clueless. 110%!
Here his entire foreign policy has been about enslaving people & inserting Sharia law in other countries & yet the idiot feminazis & homosexuals think he cares about them & their rights?? It's laughable if it wasn't so damn tragic how stupid these people are. And then he goes on TV today stating Romney has a bad foreign policy?!?! THE NERVE! Liberals that do not clearly see what he is doing need professional help. Period!

Eli Beer stunned the 16,500 AIPAC conference participants by arriving on stage with lights and sirens blaring on an ambucycle, a specially equipped motorcycle ambulance designed by United Hatzalah to speed up emergency response times.